*1 pro- and the case is remanded for further
ceedings consistent with ruling
Our in the certiorari action makes appeal,
moot the similar issues raised
which is dismissed.
On remand of main case the trial pleadings
court shall consider the and the
record, Fryer’s including reply in further
appropriate proceedings under chapter and parties
663A.6 663A. The pleadings
be allowed to amend their and
supplement prior neces- record where
sary all We relevant issues.
express opinion as of the merits
application or its further consideration
the trial court. appeal
Submitted with the and certiorari por- by Fryer
action were motions to strike
tions of the motions state’s briefs. Those
are preju- also overruled as moot without parties
dice pleadings to amend their
and record as stated above enable the
trial court on remand to consider all rele- urged
vant contentions before us but
we deemed in the decide
present posture of the case.
Costs in both the certiora-
ri are action taxed to the state. SUSTAINED;
WRIT APPEAL DIS-
MISSED. Kamath, appel- City,
Patricia C. lant. Morrison, ap- Washington,
G. Gifford pellees. HARRIS, J., REES, P. Considered ESCHER, Appellant, LARSON, JJ. ALLBEE ALLBEE, Justice. MORRISON,
G. Gifford Conservator Escher, Stephen decide Anna M. Duwa and which we must Terry Duwa, Appellees. statutory notice for “giving” whether tenancy by restricted of a complete without certified mail Supreme of Iowa. Court person receipt of the ap- controversy involves notified. 562.7, The plication of sections 562.6 Rehearing May 24, Denied Code, and focuses on parts of those 562.7(3). Relevant sections follow: *2 Agreement 562.6 for termination. does that Plaintiff not contend he change tenants, In the case of notified Morrison in his route farm tenancy the the only continue for follow- box number. claims that at differ- He ing crop year upon the same terms and put ent times he wrote to Morrison and box original conditions as the lease event, unless correspondence. such In on given written by notice termination is by since 1973 other notices and letters sent . party other, either whereupon the plaintiff Morrison and at his addressed to tenancy shall terminate March follow- number, 74, original by box were received ing; .... plaintiff, fact, August, even 1977. In after 562.7 Notice—how and when served. January April, between Morrison The written notice so shall be sent, by ordinary several letters given as follows: plaintiff asking that he come to Morrison’s office to renew the farm lease. Plaintiff 1. . . . acknowledged letters, receiving the but he 2. . . By respond did sending the oth- to them. Two of those er at his last Sep- known address before box and two letters were addressed to by tember a notice others to box 113. 26, 1978, On the Morrison leased operative undisput- facts are largely Terry farm A few to defendant A. Duwa. Plaintiff, Escher, ed. Giles for many has days Stephen later came defendant Duwa
years farmed and resided on 80 acres of fences, farm, onto the out took some Washington County land he which leases plowing. plaintiff May started On mother, from his Anna M. Escher. Defend- by petition menced this action for declara- ant G. Gifford Morrison is Anna’s conserva- tory judgment, asking that the Duwas be tor. enjoined occupying premises August On attempted Morrison plaintiff that be declared the lawful tenant. plaintiff’s to terminate lease. Morrison found, alia, trial, After inter sent notice for termination of the farm 29, 1977, August that on notice of termina- by lease restricted certified mail to: Mr. by tion was restricted certified mail mailed Escher, 74, Kalona, P.O. Box Iowa plaintiff’s last known address and con- 52247. The notice was returned to Morri- that cluded and notice met stat- by son’s office post office September on utory requirements. It then that held 12 with envelope marked “unclaimed.” Escher’s farm had terminated as lease been Plaintiff’s correct route box number in 1977 ignored of March 1978. The court was box According plaintiff, in August presumably 1973 his route box number had been party placed any neither reliance it. changed from 74 to 113. On this Morrison seeks to sustain A second such notice for termination was by insisting fully trial court’s decree that he by sent Morrison to August complied statutory with notice mandates It also by was sent restricted certified mail when he the termination notice to directed the envelope bore the same address as plaintiff’s However, last known address. the notice August 26. It was returned plaintiff’s whether the notice was sent to September “unclaimed” on 16. Morrison’s last decisive. In this known address secretary explained notice, the first case, said, as we is wheth- have Escher, while addressed to Giles was be- giving termi- statutory lieved to inadvertently have contained a by nation certified mail was com- brother, directed Claude Esch- plete without of the notice er; therefore, the second notice was sent to plaintiff. plaintiff. Scheibel, 64, 66,
Whether Morrison should In Leise have known of change plaintiff’s disputed. address is court declared
H
provide
statutes
requires
562.7
“service” of
terminations,
cases hold that when
and rec-
Those
tices
notice mail.
with-
ognized
accomplished
could
for service
Compliance
more,
ac-
by any
three methods.
service is
expressly
out
mandatory.
Id.
of wheth-
complished by mailing,
method,
*3
Here
third
certified
is
received
562.7(3).
attempted.1
was
addressee.
understanding
But it
our
of section 562.-
is
applied
This
was
rule of construction
7(3)
is
that this method of service
Co., 83 Iowa
Hawkeye
v.
Insurance
Ross
delivery of
no-
plete without
of
(service
a
586,
(1891)
47
under
50 N.W.
recently
court
the re-
tice. This
of notice
providing for service
accept delivery
fusal
a notice mailed
of
insured at
registered letter addressed
562.7(3)
pursuant
will not defeat
section
upon
complete
was
post office address
give
attempt
a landlord’s
notice of termi-
regis
mailing
letter so addressed
Crum,
407,
Long v.
N.W.2d
411
nation.
267
222,
tered),
motorist statute which did not LEWIS, Appellee, James E. receipt); Corp. of return v. Schroedel State Commission, Highway 88 Wis.2d also 58 Am.Jur.2d CRST, John W. KENNISON and a/k/a (1971) (“Where Notice 27 at 508 Rapids Transportation, Cedar Steel by registered authorizes service it has Appellants. been held effective when the addressed, properly
notice is registered, and .”); mailed . 66 C.J.S. Notice § Supreme Court Iowa. (1950) (“By force of statute or provision contract, may service be effec- mailed, tive when the is properly *4 addressee; receipt by of its
in such miscarriage cases risk of or
failure addressee.”). to deliver
The notice of “[b]y
termination party sending
the other at last known address before
September 1, a
mail.” dispute No exists that such notice sent in the case. Under the
authorities, the notice was effective even
though received. differs pro from statutes
viding for mailed notice where actual re
ceipt is required. Those statutes include
language manifesting an intent
notice be received before it is effective.
Provisions of service fil
ing of a receipt example. return are an 321.505, Code; Emery Transportation
§
are another.
Farmers Group Merryweather, (Iowa 1974). Provisions
that mailing prima is merely facie evidence are still example. another
Gooden v. Camden Fire Insurance Associa
tion,
Mich.App.
In accordance with what seems to be
unanimity in this and other
jurisdictions analogous under statutes I would hold that service of
notice of
effective upon sending the notice re-
stricted certified mail to the
his or her last known address.